Manager Likeability and Its Impact on Leadership Success

Introduction: Likeability and Leadership Performance

The likeability of a manager will determine how effective they are on transactionally oriented tasks while also serving as an accurate predictor of how effective they will be in more transformational roles within an organization. The intent of this analysis is to define likeability from a leadership standpoint, illustrating how this aspect of a leader's personality must be authentic, transparent in approach, and genuine in how a leader earns and keeps the trust of subordinates, peers, and superiors. A likeable person is by definition one known for friendliness or the ability to create an ongoing dialogue that includes a significant level of self-disclosure and the ability to communicate with accuracy, clarity, and honesty (George, 1995). A likeable leader is one who combines friendliness, relevance of communication to others, and empathy — the capacity to feel what others are feeling and to articulate those emotions — all unified by a very strong level of authenticity, integrity, and genuineness (Gabriel & Griffiths, 2002).

All of these factors together define a likeable person. When combined with a leader's willingness to self-sacrifice, create roles in an organization that capitalize on the unique strengths of associates, and remain consistent in those roles, a strong foundation of transformational leadership begins to emerge. One of the key findings of this study is that the extent to which a manager is able to create and sustain a high level of trust with subordinates is the extent to which they are also able to sustain transformational leadership within a team. While leaders have varying levels and depths of skills that contribute to their transformational capacity, those with demonstrated high levels of emotional intelligence (EI) combined with the four foundational aspects of transformational leadership consistently exhibit a higher level of likeability than their more transactionally oriented counterparts (Gabriel & Griffiths, 2002). In evaluating whether likeability leads to greater leadership performance, a proposed Model of Likeability and Organizational Transformation has been created and is presented in this analysis.

The existing body of research indicates that likeability is one of the foundational elements of effective transformational leadership, yet it does not exist in isolation. The accumulated research completed for this study indicates that a leader's likeability is highly correlated with their level of EI. The dimensions of EI have a direct, predictive effect on how likeable and effective a leader will be. Another finding from this analysis is that likeability by itself does not guarantee a leader will be effective; only the ability to translate EI-based skills in conjunction with a very strong foundation of transformational skills enables leaders to accomplish challenging goals and propel an organization toward fulfilling its shared vision.

This study also concludes that likeability is not essential for success either, as numerous examples of leaders and CEOs renowned for being very difficult to work with have propelled their organizations to leadership positions in their industries. Larry Ellison of Oracle, known for being exceptionally demanding and for creating a culture of mistrust and intense internal competition, is not likeable according to the dimensions examined in this study. He is, however, exceptionally effective in driving his organization to attain its vision and mission. What this study has found is that when the triad of Emotional Intelligence (EI), trust, and transformational leadership are combined, leaders increase their propensity for being liked. These three factors combined also provide leaders with a solid foundation for effectiveness in their roles. Likeability does not assure results, however. Figure 1, Analysis of Key Factors of Likeability, shows how these three factors must be balanced and proportional in a leader's management style to be effective. Deficiencies in EI, for example, could lead to a very collegial work environment, yet the leader would not know how and when to define tasks and key strategies to accomplish objectives over time. All three must be balanced in order for a catalyst of continued progress to form and stabilize within an organization.

Figure 1: Analysis of Key Factors of Likeability in Leaders
Based on analysis of the following sources: (Gardner, 1983; Izard, 1991; Sanders, 2006)

Likeability, Leadership, and the Pursuit of Results

In completing the literature review and background analysis of likeability and its implications for managerial and leadership effectiveness, a recurring trend emerged. Likeability in and of itself, even when an organization has an exceptionally compelling vision, does not deliver results. By being likeable and maintaining a strong level of authenticity, transparency, and trust, a transformational leader will have the ability to motivate their teams to significant levels of accomplishment (Sanders, 2006). Yet a paradox emerged from the analysis: without a strong foundation of knowledge regarding how to correctly interpret the specific cultural, psychological, and sociological cues of subordinates, peers, and superiors, even the most transformative leader would not achieve challenging goals — much less the overarching vision of the enterprise.

This paradox of leadership, as shown in the literature review and subsequent analysis, requires a strong foundation of EI to correctly interpret and respond to situations occurring in real time throughout an enterprise. The ability of any leader to correctly interpret and respond to a given situation — whether it be a risk or an opportunity — must be consistent and transparent in order for trust to be continually maintained and strengthened over time. EI acts as the gyroscope in Figure 1, keeping the entire learning ecosystem functioning correctly. EI is also how leaders earn and keep trust over time, with a focus on how best to create transparency of direction and motives. All three components are balanced in leaders who demonstrate high levels of reliability and performance. It takes an insightful and self-aware leader to seek to balance these factors using EI skills they continually develop (Ciarrochi, Chan, & Caputi, 2000).

This study also shows that EI levels are not necessarily innate. Managers have the ability to become transformational by shifting their approach across the four dimensions of transformational leadership: individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence. Studies have shown that managers who continually invest in training and seek out opportunities to strengthen these four areas can, over time, achieve greater transformationally based success than short-term approaches to leadership allow. Having a more transformationally oriented approach also helps create higher levels of trust, thereby increasing likeability.

As Figure 1 shows, these factors combine to create an ecosystem that fuels likeability and the ability to accomplish challenging tasks. Likeability, while an aspiration of many managers and leaders alike, is most useful when relied upon for creating a highly focused, galvanized team that seeks to attain higher levels of performance over time (Goleman, 1995). The greatest leaders have an innate sense of how and when to bring the four elements of transformational leadership to bear on a given situation and ensure the attainment of goals in the short-term while advancing the company's vision in the long-term (Goleman, 1995). This ability to sense what to do and how to do it with their teams — while also keeping teams balanced and motivated through individualized attention — forms the foundation of likeability as an attribute of effective, productive leaders.

The Foundations of Likeability Are Found in Emotional Intelligence

Many of the theorists and researchers whose work forms the foundation of this analysis noted that the study of EI had a negative connotation early on and was seen by some researchers as potentially manipulative and Machiavellian in scope. Early researchers came from an era when corporations could exert far greater control over the lives of their workers than they do today, so it was a natural extension to believe that EI would become a tactic for emotionally controlling subordinates (Young, 1936; Schaffer, Gilmer, & Schoen, 1940). As of the 21st century, the greatest challenge has become unleashing the intelligence and expertise of workers and creating a highly collaborative, nurturing environment in which they can excel. This represents a nearly 180-degree turn from the early researchers who were more focused on the pure efficiency of EI and its implications for transitionally oriented workflows. This shift in seeing EI as a necessary catalyst of productivity is also aligned with the movement away from time-and-motion oriented management approaches such as Taylorism, toward a higher prioritization of employee commitment and the transformational potential of unleashing their intelligence and insight into complex problems.

Subsequent research into EI has shown that while many leaders have an innate ability to interpret events and contextualize them for their teams, others need a continual level of coaching and leadership development for this to occur. The most successful training programs concentrate on the cognitive side of emotions, specifically evaluating how leaders can provide individualized attention and support to help subordinates prioritize tasks, focus their efforts, organize their time and resources, and attain a higher level of performance. The transition of managers into leaders is also determined by the level of trust the latter is able to create and sustain through greater authenticity and genuineness in their interactions with subordinates. No longer simply directing activities in the short-term, a leader with a sufficiently high level of EI interprets, acts on, and promotes the vision the organization is attempting to accomplish by taking a purposeful path toward its fulfillment. This can only happen when a leader maintains a strong focus on the needs of the team while also underscoring the urgency of achieving goals. Transactionally oriented leaders struggle with this trade-off between task orientation and emotional intelligence, while transformational leaders clearly understand the need for balance. Figure 2 illustrates the balance required to ensure likeability and goal attainment remain grounded in a foundation of trust.

Figure 2: Balancing Emotional Intelligence and Trust
Based on analysis of the following sources: (Boyatzis, 1982; George, 2000; Gabriel & Griffiths, 2002)

Theorists and researchers have since determined that the holistic nature of EI is more of a foundation for motivation than any transactionally based management technique. Long-term belief in and clear identification with a given vision and goal is far more powerful as a motivator than a small cash payment at the completion of a task or a short-term reward. Long-term aspirations and the potential to fulfill them are significantly more powerful and rewarding for employees to participate in and sacrifice to achieve than any small, temporary incentive. This is precisely why EI is such a critical component of the foundation of transformational leadership (Saarni, 1990). Without it, long-term goals and a vision that takes years to accomplish — requiring the full commitment of a team — would not be achievable. Yet with transformational leadership, even the most seemingly remote objectives can become attainable.

The often-cited declaration by President Kennedy in the early 1960s of America winning the Space Race is a case in point. He galvanized a nation toward that goal, and America succeeded. Yet consider what might have occurred if President Kennedy had been transactional, offering short-term rewards for incremental gains in spaceflight and innovation. The moon landing of 1969 and the remarkable achievements built on advances made during that era — including the landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars — would likely not have happened. Remarkable achievements become possible for succeeding generations of an enterprise when a transformational leader sets a firm foundation through the use of EI.

Likeability is also foundational to the development of an effective transformational leadership skill set, yet must be kept in context. It should not be a goal in and of itself, but rather a part of any leader's progression toward becoming a transformational leader. As Izard (1991) notes, leaders are specifically given the responsibility of creating a culture of achievement and innovation while also developing a level of trust and transparency to ensure team members have the stability and resilience to deal with uncertainty and rapid change (Yukl, 1989). The best leaders are able to balance the emotional and the logical, underscoring the need for continual improvement and innovation to ensure challenging objectives are accomplished (Boyatzis, 1982). Theorists and researchers alike show that simply creating a culture of trust and transparency is not enough; team members want someone to hold them to a standard of what they can achieve and help them reach that level of attainment when needed (Goleman, 1998; Boyatzis, 1982).

The leader emerges as coach and mentor — a person capable of creating the combination of transformational factors that gain subordinates' commitment to a challenging goal or vision, while being transparent and trustworthy enough to gain cooperation, all underscored by a high level of situational and emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Likeability in this context is the glue that unifies the elements in Figure 1; it is the catalyst that keeps an organization moving forward and morale at a level resilient enough to withstand setbacks, negativity, and the inevitable challenges that occur when teams and entire organizations pursue a difficult goal.

The concept of likeability also does not exist in a vacuum. The larger and more diverse a team, department, or organization, the greater the complexity of likeability and its effectiveness as part of a transformational leadership approach. Likeability is defined differently across companies, with the norms, values, and vision of the company defining its most critical dimensions (Gabriel & Griffiths, 2002). Theorists have argued that likeability is directly related to competence and the peer evaluations a leader receives from peers in other departments as well as subordinates (Gabriel & Griffiths, 2002). Far from a popularity contest, likeability is actually deeply rooted in how competent and kind a leader is — two potentially conflicting directions that a leader with strong EI skills can balance effectively. Competence and kindness emerge as two critical success factors for a transformational leader to be respected, effective, and liked, all of which leads to their ability to motivate employees to attain the highest levels of performance possible (Rafaeli & Worline, 2001).

Conclusion

Likeability as a predictor of leadership success is multifaceted and much more of a paradox than it initially appears. When taken in the context of transformational leadership, likeability becomes central to a leader's ability to be emotionally intelligent and focused on the needs of subordinates. The concept of the leader as an enabler of change — including a motivator of long-term commitment to work — must be present for likeability to have long-term effects. Transactional leadership in and of itself may be useful in the short-term for completing smaller projects, and managers with these characteristics may motivate through short-term rewards. Yet the transformational leaders who can make EI work in the context of long-term leadership are the most effective in ensuring corporate transformation occurs as a result of their efforts. A proposed Model of Likeability and Organizational Transformation has been created to show how these trade-offs are managed effectively and how they can be used by managers transitioning into leaders by putting their teams first.

References

Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership (Vol. 2, pp. 3–33). JAI Press.

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Introduction to, and overview of, transformational and charismatic leadership. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership (Vol. 2, pp. xvii–xxiii). JAI Press.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-I): Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. John Wiley & Sons.

Ciarrochi, J. V., Chan, A. Y. C., & Caputi, P. (2000). A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 539–561.

Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 989–1015.

Gabriel, Y., & Griffiths, D. S. (2002). Emotion, learning and organizing. The Learning Organization, 9(5), 214–221.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.

Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 23(2), 68–78.

George, J. M. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of customer service. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 778–794.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53(8), 1027–1055.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.

House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81–107). Academic Press.

Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. Plenum Press.

Kawasaki, G. (2012). Ten steps to enchanting your employees. Leader to Leader, 2012(65), 33.

Leeper, R. W. (1948). A motivational theory of emotions to replace "emotions as disorganized response." Psychological Review, 55, 5–21.

Macaleer, W., & Shannon, J. (2002). Emotional intelligence: How does it affect leadership? Employment Relations Today, 29(3), 71–82.

Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. MIT Press.

Rafaeli, A., & Worline, M. (2001). Individual emotion in work organizations. Social Science Information, 40(1), 95–123.

Saarni, C. (1990). Emotional competence: How emotions and relationships become integrated. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 36. University of Nebraska Press.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211.

Sanders, T. (2006). The likeability factor. Random House.

Schaffer, L. F., Gilmer, B., & Schoen, M. (1940). Psychology. Harper & Brothers.

Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Simon, H. A. (1982). Comments. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition (pp. 333–342). Erlbaum.

Watkin, C. (2000). Developing emotional intelligence. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(2), 89–92.

Young, P. T. (1936). Motivation of behavior. John Wiley & Sons.

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall.